Windows 8: one step forward, two steps back (Column)

RaptorSA said:
Naah, more like 2010, making it even more indigestible.

Disregarding the "average" person as unimportant and uninfluential is a massive mistake that especially us geeks like to make.
Click to expand...

I can only speak from my own experience here:
I not a computer geek - (although I am sitting on a tech forum on fri night :D) In that I hate tinkering with computers and trying to get things working. they must just work.
I dont necessarily care about open source. If there is a commercial program I want that gets the job done then I will use it.
I have never tried any of the non-ubuntu based distros, so I dont necessarily care about "linux" on a whole either
I was tired of getting viruses and so I decided to try ubuntu- that was my main reason.

After installing and using ubuntu I came to the conclusion that it was easier to install and use than windows (inc windows 7) and did everything I wanted in what for me was a more intuitive way. For the last install, I didn't have to install a single driver, everything, including my cell c internet just worked.
The software centre makes finding and installing software a pleasure.
The fact that there is some order to the "start" menu appeals to me.
I haven't had a single virus for over 5 years now and no antivirus running in the background.
For me it is just a better OS.

That said, if I want to play games then I will boot into my windows partition because that also just works better.
but I would say I now spend about 99% of my time in ubuntu and have not looked back.
 
ave said:
I can only speak from my own experience here:
I not a computer geek - (although I am sitting on a tech forum on fri night :D) In that I hate tinkering with computers and trying to get things working. they must just work.
I dont necessarily care about open source. If there is a commercial program I want that gets the job done then I will use it.
I have never tried any of the non-ubuntu based distros, so I dont necessarily care about "linux" on a whole either
I was tired of getting viruses and so I decided to try ubuntu- that was my main reason.

After installing and using ubuntu I came to the conclusion that it was easier to install and use than windows (inc windows 7) and did everything I wanted in what for me was a more intuitive way. For the last install, I didn't have to install a single driver, everything, including my cell c internet just worked.
The software centre makes finding and installing software a pleasure.
The fact that there is some order to the "start" menu appeals to me.
I haven't had a single virus for over 5 years now and no antivirus running in the background.
For me it is just a better OS.

That said, if I want to play games then I will boot into my windows partition because that also just works better.
but I would say I now spend about 99% of my time in ubuntu and have not looked back.
Click to expand...

I would never dare disagree with someone who's "been around the block".
Truth be told most of the applications we use at work would just as well be served by a free OS that covers the basics, like Linux.
I just get upset when the whole "it's definitely better" concept comes into play.
 
RaptorSA said:
I would never dare disagree with someone who's "been around the block".
Truth be told most of the applications we use at work would just as well be served by a free OS that covers the basics, like Linux.
I just get upset when the whole "it's definitely better" concept comes into play.
Click to expand...

yeah look everybody needs to find what works for them. I just get irritated when people criticise something they have never tired themselves- I was telling my cousin about Ubuntu and his friend told him that linux is terrible, you cant even use a mouse in it. :wtf:
 
ave said:
yeah look everybody needs to find what works for them. I just get irritated when people criticise something they have never tired themselves- I was telling my cousin about Ubuntu and his friend told him that linux is terrible, you cant even use a mouse in it. :wtf:
Click to expand...

haha, OK that's obviously waaaaay too extreme.
Slight jealousy is probably a large part of the reason I don't like Linux, not necessarily because it's UI sucks. But because it has all that potential, and yet, no-one has ever really succeeded in harnessing it in a way that fills billboards.
 
RaptorSA said:
haha, OK that's obviously waaaaay too extreme.
Slight jealousy is probably a large part of the reason I don't like Linux, not necessarily because it's UI sucks. But because it has all that potential, and yet, no-one has ever really succeeded in harnessing it in a way that fills billboards.
Click to expand...

The trouble is, its not easy marketing something on a budget of zero, especially when the competition has a marketing budget of millions.
This is why Linux succeeds in certain areas where you may never even notice (even the hardcore windows fanboy would look at a mede8er and think it looks like a cool gadget, while being unaware of the fact that they are now using Linux)

The objective really should not be to fill billboards. It should be to produce the best tool for the job. Thats where Linux wins in most cases.
 
For all the haters out there, I'm a .Net developer. Totally not trolling here. For those who don't know what .Net is; it's the stuff developers use to write software for Microsoft Windows. When i started studying my attitude towards Linux was "why the fk must i learn this crap when i know Windows like the back of my hand?".

As ave said a few posts back i played around with Ubuntu a couple years ago because i wanted something that addressed all the problems that Windows Vista didn't. I know both operating systems (Ubuntu and Windows) pretty damn well by now so you can trust me when i say Windows is riding out it's monopoly because on technical level and a user experience level, it just can't compete with Ubuntu.

As for UEFI, sure we can overcome it just as we overcame DRM but we shouldn't have to. It's like saying; sure we can have Jewish friends, we just need to pretend to hate Jews when the Gestapo come around. The truth is i honestly don't have a problem with Windows it's a pretty decent operating system, i don't even mind that they charge an arm and a leg for it. My only gripe is that they happily take away my freedoms because they can, because they have a monopoly.

Note: OpenTangent = Andrew Craucamp
 
Last edited:
"Where you were once allowed to download and install anything your heart desired, you are now forced to download metro apps from Microsoft’s Windows Store"

Not a hater but just to point out the inaccuracy of that statement. Win8 is not going to become an itunes/ipad/iphone type of experience like you're implying by that statement. Yes the metro 'feature' will have those restrictions but win8 users will still be able to operate freely like before when it comes to browsing and downloads.

As for linux - it has its pros and cons but when it comes to running the latest software and getting optimal graphics drivers, I'm not going to break my head to tweak/recompile drivers and beg for updates like you do in linux. Linux is an awesome application server for perhaps SME markets but is not popular for gaming for these reasons. Nowadays when people play games they want them to run hassle free and this is why consoles and tablets are so popular (games just work), and windows to a lesser extent (slight hassle factor), and unix is hardly viable for a proper games machine.
 
Ok OpenTangent, on the Article comments you challenged "If in my article is “inaccurate” in any way please point it out so that it can be corrected.".

Before I start let me point out, I'm a Windows Developer and Solutions Architect but also write code on various other platforms including Linux, Android etc. I've been developing in .NET since 1999/2000, but have been a developer for far longer.

I've been writing code for long enough to have developed software to run on MS-DOS 3.0 - MS-DOS - 6.22, I got my first mouse with my first copy of Windows 1, I've contributed to many open source projects such as MONO etc, I've Presented at Microsoft Conferences, and have been a Beta tester on almost every version of Windows and .NET ever Released.

With that out of the way, lets have a look at those inaccuracies.

Right now I have my Test Notebook Running the Windows 8 Developer Preview with Visual Studio 11 Preview on it. so my comments are not only based on what Is easily available information on the web, but also on my own first hand experience.

Putting aside the whole subject of DRM, which has been and and will continue to be hotly debated you claim that
Windows 8 machines will require what’s known as “secure boot”
Click to expand...
and further claim that Microsoft will use it to take ownership of your hardware.

First of all Windows 8 will not require secure boot it will however support it, now if you collected your information from anti-Microsoft sites such as The Register you could be forgiven for getting this wrong so let me explain Secure Boot.

Secure Boot is a Hardware feature that is part of the new UEFI Secure Boot Protocol Specification, for those who do not know what UEFI is, all computers use what is known as a BIOS (basic input output system) designed by Gary Kildall in 1975 which is in it's most basic format a unified system that allows operating systems such as Windows, Linux, Apple OS etc to communicate with the computers hardware.

Hardware manufacturers have recently come to the conclusion that the 35+ year old technology that sits at the core of all our PC's is a little outdated and have come up with a replacement which is UEFI. Not only does this have nothing to do with Windows 8 but it's not even a Microsoft technology. So claiming that Windows 8, by supporting one of UEFI's new features designed to reduce virus infections and allow corporates better control over their hardware is giving Microsoft control over your hardware is absurd.

The Secure boot feature has exactly the same impact on Microsoft as it would have on any other OS/App vendor in that they will have to cater for it in the future, Windows 8 just happens to be the first OS to do so.

You also claim
Microsoft has decided to take Apple’s walled garden approach to apps. Where you were once allowed to download and install anything your heart desired, you are now forced to download metro apps from Microsoft’s Windows Store.
Click to expand...

Unlike Apple's iPad, Windows 8 will still allow you to install whatever you want, the App Store which you are correct in comparing to Apples App Store will just be another feature, and is much more accurately compared to Linux's Apt-Get feature or maybe the Aptitude version of Apt-Get.

That being said there are many rumors abound at the moment that Specifically Metro apps for windows 8 will only be available from the app store, note that even the rumors do not claim that you will no longer be able to install traditional or non Metro apps as and when you want.

Seeing as even Microsoft admits that they haven't really finalized this feature it's difficult to give any credence to the rumors. Keep in Mind that the Metro UI is not the new Windows UI, but a new Windows UI, the traditional desktop with start menu will still be part of windows 8 and will be the default UI for non touch desktop machines whilst the new Metro UI will be the default for phones and tablets.

What this means is that Windows 8 on a tablet will function much like the now proven Android and Apple Tablet UI's, app store and all, while Windows 8 on the Desktop will function much like Windows 7 does now on your desktop or notebook.
 
First off, my experience of playing with the developer preview has left me feeling iffy. On the one hand, the UI changes are great, and will help new converts from XP settle in quicker with the ease of things that can be done using the new ribbon interface. Not having to integrate Teracopy into Windows is a real plus in my books as well. Things are as stable as they can be in a VM, but I doubt I'll be playing with it anymore than this. For the moment, its too rough on the edges for me to make any final comments. As for the article, I commend your bravery, Andrew, but I think all the journos out there are jumping on their horses too quickly.

Android has shown the world that an open approach isn’t just an ideal, it’s a fundamental requirement for the success of a modern operating system. Apple’s iOS remains the king when it comes to the OS of desire, but Android has completely dominated the mobile arena simply because it works very well on the cheapest to the most advanced devices.
Click to expand...

I'd like to chime in and point out that Android isn't actually open-source - many people get this part wrong, because the GNU license specifically requires that if anything is distributed under the GNU code, the source code of the software must be made available for comments, modifications, and re-writes by the community as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google has actually created Android to be as locked-down by default as iOS, with the option of rooting the phone for the adventurous. So, most people will ignore this "selling point".

Windows Vista and Windows 7 both received a lot of negative publicity because of their inclusion of DRM in the operating system. For those who don’t know what DRM is all about, to put it simply: Microsoft and their partners are the highest authority on your PC and are able to allow or disallow certain actions at their discretion.
Click to expand...

As I've seen from other posters here, I'm a bit confused - where on earth did you see DRM on a Windows install? I only know of DRM functions that come with apps and games that limit your uses of said software - Windows itself is pretty much open to be customised as much as I want. I've not gone deep under the surface, but there's a fair bit of stuff I've tinkered with.

Microsoft is a different breed of tech company however and they have gone ahead with a new attempt to wrest control of your hardware, hoping it would slip by unnoticed.Windows 8 machines will require what’s known as “secure boot” which is marketed as a security feature but in reality it’s primary purpose is to prevents other operating systems from being booted on the machine.
Click to expand...

I won't do the whole "walled garden" quote thing, but lets get this out - Apple has shown that this approach works. Period. There is absolutely nothing you can point out or say that can deny this, because everyone I've talked to who have become new owners, or returning owners of an Apple device, like the way that the software's been designed to not allow crap to interfere with it.

I've had nothing but trouble from people who've stuffed up their Windows machines and even cellphones because the software allowed them complete control over it. I know it'll be taking my job away for the most part, but manageing what software goes on their OS and how it interacts with it is a major step in the advancement of Windows, and I hope Microsoft pulls this off. They need security and stability, and they can only ensure this if they look at the way Apple has done things. Sure, they won't try to be as draconian, but they'll protect users where necessary. That's the way I see it from someone who actually fixes computers and Macs for a living. I've only had one Mac user with problems in the two years I've worked at my current job, and boatloads of idiot Windows users.

Windows 8 machines will require what’s known as “secure boot” which is marketed as a security feature but in reality it’s primary purpose is to prevents other operating systems from being booted on the machine
Click to expand...

Again, Apple's strength is that they only allow certain devices that have been *cough*extensively*cough* tested in their software environment to ensure that upgrades and such won't break the system. Safeboot with the inclusion of EUFI may allow Microsoft to prevent unauthorised modifications to the device that may break the useability of the system, or may be used to circumvent other software limitations to use the devices in a way it wasn't intended. Safeboot, in my opinion, is a further step to keep the idiots out of harm's way. If you're familiar with computer hardware and know what you're doing, Safeboot shouldn't be an issue.

Where you were once allowed to download and install anything your heart desired, you are now forced to download metro apps from Microsoft’s Windows Store. Again this is marketed as a security feature but as Apple has proven time and again, anything that they disapprove of (security vulnerability or otherwise) can be chopped at their discretion.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure where this comes from. The strength in Windows has been its ability to run any program you've coded for it or that you have downloaded from elsewhere to help you do what you want. While I've love for MS to block people using anything from the Magentic company including Incredimail, the truth is that this would turn people away from upgrading rather than entice them. One of the benefits of Symbian, for example, is that you can load any app you want from any location and provided that its properly packed and signed it will run.

I can't believe Microsoft would want to move to a single centre for apps for a desktop/tablet environment as opposed to letting a user get things working the way they want - that's never been the way that Windows works. Perhaps you're borrowing from the WP7 ideals a bit too much here, and reading between the lines to make up for a lack of information no-one else seems to have.

And finally:

It’s this lack of freedom that has certainly pushed me away from Windows, and as people become more tech savvy, this will likely strengthen the migration towards more open options.
Click to expand...

Lets face it, Linux has lost the battle. It'll have to be content playing a very distany third fiddle in the desktop market for now. Microsoft and Macs are far more uquibitious in the business and personal computer market and the average Joe/Jess wouldn't think of going to open-source route because there simply isn't the kind of support he/she needs to feel comfortable with the OS.

Mind share is everything, and Linux had their chance of grabbing that mindshare during the early months of the Vista fiasco. A company sleeping on their feet when there's an easy target market up for grabs will be the loser in the race for the customer's support.
 
@Andrew

My only gripe is that they happily take away my freedoms because they can, because they have a monopoly
Click to expand...

Another thing that really ticks me off is when open source zealots refer to Windows as a monopoly. Consumers can choose between a variety of operating systems. Linux has been around for about 20 years now. the MAC OS started at about the same time as Windows (albeit on their bundled hardware). Fact is, its not a monopoly, its more a case of consumers having a choice and not choosing linux.

As for you claim that Ubuntu surpasses Windows on both a technical level and user experience level, I will take that as being your opinion rather than generally accepted truth, since my opinion of Ubuntu is the polar opposite. I can't really speak about the technical level, but I guess I'll agree with you because the number of settings you have to tweak to get something working in Ubuntu is mind-blowing. As for the user experience, I don't really believe Compiz is the be-all-end-all of user experiences. The millions Microsoft and Apple spend on researching human interaction with computers must at least make their products superior in the user experience facet, and at most give linux something to copy. Just an example, searching "ubuntu unity" in google gives a number of bad reviews as results on the first page???

I have nothing against linux, in fact I use Ununtu for a small media file server at home. My problem is the vast inconsistencies between the various distributions. e.g. If they can't even settle on a standard installer package, how do they intend to improve much more important factors such as user experience and technical details?
 
Last edited:
recre8 said:
Another thing that really ticks me off is when open source zealots refer to Windows as a monopoly.
Click to expand...

You have a gross misunderstanding of how MS does business if you think they don't have a monopoly.
 
Arthur said:
Or perhaps you do, if you think Microsoft does.
Click to expand...

I can give an example:

Back when 3D acceleration was just taking off, OpenGL emerged as a standard for using hardware accelerated graphics cards. This standard worked on all the major platforms at the time.
Microsoft noticed another avenue for lock in, and created a competing standard that only worked on their platform (DirectX)
At the time, DirectX was inferior hence the likes of Carmack using OpenGL instead.

What MS did to deal with this is extensive campaigning to get developers using their standard instead of the open standard, despite OpenGL being easier to use and having a wider reach. That sort of tactic would not normally work (where a developer willingly chooses to limit his reach) but in the case of Windows, they had almost the entire market so it didn't matter in terms of market reach if someone is pushing their own method to the detriment of everyone elses.

In this way, they used their dominance of the Desktop, to push their own inferior API, which only ended up being a preferred API when the OpenGL ARB screwed up.

They then went a step further, using DirectX 10 on Vista and above only, so even if you had DX 10 class hardware, with new features that could be accessed via either DirectX 10 or OpenGL, you were forced to upgrade your OS to Vista because the game developers were now locked in to using DirectX (due to their knowledge over the years being focused on that API)

This is just one example that you could consider to be an isolated event, but the same behaviour is apparent in other examples, and I'm really not in the mood to type out a long post for each when you're perfectly capable of Googling by yourself.

Here's a few questions you should be asking: why don't MS support ANSI standard SQL? why do they support POSIX standard function calls but provide them with the wrong name and mark them as deprecated? Why did their browser not support standards until they started losing market share?
 
DirectX - I wouldn't really blame Microsoft here. If I had to include a significant component in my operating system, I'd use something I developed and had control over instead of a someone's else's attempt for various reasons. For one, I'd say better interaction with the operating system at a lower level than OpenGL is capable of. But mostly, I'd do it because I have control over the development life cycle. You can't really force someone else to have this new version of OpenGL ready by the time Windows X launches. You can do that when you are developing it inhouse though.

SQL vs T-SQL. T-SQL is simply Microsoft proprietary extension to SQL to fix some of the inadequacies within the SQL standard and provide much needed features which standard SQL cannot provide. And please don't forget that Oracle saw the same inadequacies of SQL as well and developed their own proprietary extension PL/SQL. As did PostgreSQL with PL/pgSQL, and even MySQL does not fully comply with SQL92.

What you are providing is a list of places where Microsoft opted to take a standard specification and extend it to what became a proprietary implementation and passing that off as a monopoly.
 
Last edited:
This has got to be the funniest thread for a while. Thanks Andrew! :D
 
Mouse said:
You have a gross misunderstanding of how MS does business if you think they don't have a monopoly.
Click to expand...

Nope your understanding is lacking. They dominate the market they don't own the market.

It's like saying intel are a monopoly because amd cannot compete at the moment, doesn't make sense to think that way. A monopoly means people have no choice so a good example would be an adsl line. There is only one company who we can get it from. That is a monopoly.
 
Man what a fun thread.

Comparing a desktop OS to a phone OS is pure Win :)

But I have to add even if Microsoft dont run a monopoly today, lets face it they dont play fare and I dont blame them. I would do the exact same thing if I was in charge.

Also Windows makes for a great desktop and rightly so, can you imagine what the game market would look like if developers had to pick what OS they will support before making a game, can you imagine the fights then, we get a small hint of what it would look like just by watching the console wars.

Linux has its place as well, like the server farm of the ISP I manage or the millions of servers running the stock exchanges all over the world or the billions of network devices that runs the OS in silence.

End of the Day, pick the OS for the Job and not how you feel about a company or the technology they used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X